nanog mailing list archives
Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat)
From: Shrdlu <shrdlu () deaddrop org>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 16:33:25 -0700
On 3/12/2013 4:16 PM, Warren Bailey wrote:
Contractors with facility clearances? I would find it hard to believe dot gov would run secure circuits to a non secure facility. ;)
The word "Contractor" is usually used to refer to anyone that has a contract to do work with the government. Having spent nearly my entire working life in those situations, I can absolutely and completely guarantee that this type of circuit is common, that the types of phones referred to are commonplace in such an environment, and that I have used such phones in the course of a normal day. The world is filled with more things, Horatio, than are met with in your philosophy (with apologies to W.S.). -- The right to buy weapons is the right to be free. The Weapon Shops of Isher, by A. E. van Vogt
Current thread:
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Mike A (Mar 12)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Warren Bailey (Mar 12)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Shrdlu (Mar 12)
- RE: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Jamie Bowden (Mar 13)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Shrdlu (Mar 12)
- RE: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Jamie Bowden (Mar 13)
- Re: Network security on multiple levels (was Re: NYT covers China cyberthreat) Warren Bailey (Mar 12)